ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
B.R.SARANGI, SAVITRI RATHO, JJ.
M/s. Jibandhara - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No. 33851 of 2020
Decided On : 09-03-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R. SARANGI, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the Tender Call Notice dated 26/27.11.2020 under Annexure-9 series; and to direct the opposite parties to approve the extension of the appointment of the petitioner for a further period of two years, i.e. from 03.01.2021 to 02.01.2023 as per the terms of contract, in view of the recommendation made by opposite party no.3 on 27.10.2020 under Annexure-6; and to direct opposite party no.3 to release the arrear dues of Rs.1,40,00,000/- along with subsequent pending dues of the petitioner forthwith.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that opposite party no.3 floated an e-tender call notice on 08.08.2016 for empanelment of Chemists for CGHS for three years, i.e. 2016-2019 with the terms and conditions specified therein. The petitioner participated in the tender process and became successful. Accordingly, the petitioner executed the agreement for a period of one year on 03.11.2016. But subsequently the said agreement was renewed on 02.11.2017 and 02.11.2018 for one year extension in each spell. Another advertisement was issued by the opposite party no.3 on 26.04.2019 for empanelment of Chemists for CGHS for a period of three years on expiry of earlier tender with same terms and conditions of 2016. Since the tender process was continuing, the appointment of the petitioner was extended from 03.11.2019 to 02.12.2019 with the same terms and conditions, as per the appointment order dated 03.11.2016. Again, the agreement was extended from 03.12.2019 to 02.01.2020 because of the delay in finalization of the tender. In the meantime, the petitioner participated in the process of tender, pursuant to the e- tender call notice dated 26.04.2019. Though the advertisement was issued for three years, the petitioner, being the successful bidder, entered into an agreement with opposite party no.3 on 03.01.2020 for a period of one year. While the contract was subsisting, opposite party No. 3 wrote a letter on 27.10.2020 to opposite party no.2 for approval of extension of appointment of the petitioner for two years, i.e. from 03.01.2021 to 02.01.2023. The petitioner also wrote a letter on 13.11.2020 to opposite party no.3 to release the arrear dues. But, instead of extending the period, as had been recommended, opposite party no.2 wrote to opposite party no.3 for initiation of fresh tender call notice, vide letter dated 16.11.2020. Pursuant thereto, opposite party no.3 floated the tender call notice on 26.11.2020 for a period of three years by enhancing the EMD amount from Rs.30,000/- to around Rs.14.00 lakhs. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the tender floated on 26.04.2019 was for a period of three years, the agreement was executed with the petitioner on 30.12.2019 for a period of one year. Therefore, before expiry of such period of one year, as per the normal practice, extension was to be given in favour of the petitioner for a period of another two years and, as such, opposite party no.3 had also written a letter to opposite party no.2 for extension of such period. However, opposite party no.2, without acceding to the request made by opposite party no.3, wrote a letter to opposite party no.3 to initiate fresh tender, pursuant to which, the tender call notice was issued on 26.11.2020. Thereby, the authorities have acted arbitrarily and unreasonably, for which the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition.
4. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India, contended that admittedly the notice inviting tender was for a period of three years, but while executing the agreement, the petitioner entered into the agreement for a period of one year and, more so, that period has not been extended by the authority. Apa
M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others
West Bengal Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd and others
Central Coalfields Ltd and another v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and others
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others
Roots Industries India Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India and others
A contract's duration dictates rights to extension; courts may not interfere in administrative tender decisions without compelling evidence of arbitrariness.
Tender Process - Extension of period of Contract - Placed on successful bidders may be extended/repeated at sole discretion of Corporation for a further period of up to 12 months including increasing....
The court established that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a force majeure event, warranting an extension of contractual obligations, and underscored the necessity of arbitration in resolving disp....
The court affirmed that tendering authorities have discretion to set conditions and extend contracts, provided such actions are not arbitrary or unreasonable.
The discretion of public authorities in contract renewals must align with contractual terms and not amount to arbitrary action, ensuring transparency and fairness in public procurement.
The main legal point established is that technical errors in bid submission do not warrant interference in the tender process, especially when it may delay the implementation of a public project.
The court ruled that a contractor cannot claim an extension of a contract as a matter of right after its expiration, and disputes must be resolved through arbitration.
The principle established is that the tendering process and selection criteria cannot be changed after the process has started, and imposing additional conditions after the tender process has begun i....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.